memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Shran/2007 Archive
For older discussions, see my archives here and here. protected page Since I'm being accused personally (another user is sending various messages about "Captainmike is wrong" rather than "add my viewpoint into the article differently", i protected Shelby. I'm bowing out to allow others to work on it, this is called for by the protection policy. I shouldn't be involved anymore now thats its gone personal and i stopped the situation. I am doing this to prove that i can follow policy. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :Roger that. --From Andoria with Love 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Hi Shran, Since you stated that I should bring problems to your attention, I would like to do exactly that: I have some problem with the fact that I have been accused of "repeatedly bringing up" another user on talkpages (plural), "banning" users (plural) from my talk page, making "silly allegations" toward members (plural), and that I am "trying to start trouble". Here is the page in question: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/User_talk:OuroborosCobra#user_controversy The user in question who is making these claims did so during the course of a dispute which (hopefully) is now resolved; however, it is disturbing that I am being gossipped about on other users' talk pages while this was going on. I thank you in advance for a resolution. Roundeyesamurai 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC) ETA: Likewise, the same allegations, or similar ones, or complete mischaracterizations of the dispute, have been made on the following talk pages: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/User_talk:DarkHorizon http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/User_talk:Cid_Highwind http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/User_talk:Gvsualan#Possible_issue_on_Shelby I understand that these persons are administrators, and it is appropriate policy to bring potential problems to their attention; however, no good purpose is served by mischaracterizing a dispute to gain favor, making incorrect allegations about a person (example: pluralizing a disputed act to give the appearance that an individual "has done it to someone other than me, too"), or gossipping about a person with whom one has a dispute (see previous post). Again, thank you for your attention. Roundeyesamurai 10:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC) :Oy! I am waaaay too tired to handle this now, but I shall make an attempt anyway. I think this is where that failure in communication thing I mentioned comes into play. Mike was attempting to let others know of what was at the time a current situation since he himself was backing out of the discussion altogether. He wanted others to get involved in order to resolve the situation. He apparently had reason to believe that you were trying to cause trouble and expressed that opinion to others, an opinion you have already disputed and may dispute again if you wish. Also, I wouldn't take the pluralizing of words too literally, I do that often even though something only involves one of something (if that makes sense). Also, you and Mike were discussing things on two talk pages – Talk:Shelby and User talk:Roundeyesamurai – and you questioned his actions on both pages. So, technically, in that respect, he was correct. I don't really believe he was writing these messages to gain favor; rather, he was just expressing his view of the situation, a view which you disagree with. Like I said, you can feel free to dispute it, but it appears that Mike has moved on and, if you want you fast resolution to this whole ordeal, I would suggest you do the same. Your call, of course. I wish I could be more help than that, but I would really like to see this whole thing come to an end. --From Andoria with Love 05:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Two bad IPs Just wanted to bring to your attention to bad IPs: *219.200.32.34 spammed Jaz's talk page (poor guy, on vacation and still attacked), and created a previously deleted article, Bilaren Prime, filled its contents with only spam. I have removed the spam, and nominated the article for re-deletion. *210.114.183.194 created the article Rock climbing, filled contents with only spam. I have removed the spam and nominated the article for deletion (although I admit it could probably be developed into something real, I just don't think I could do it justice). That's all. Like my new sig thing? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC) another bad IP ;Bimatrix Created by a spamdel. I am too tired to fix and or nominate for deletion. Trying to go to bed, but these petaQs attacked my precious Klingon article. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Day Pages I (on the one hand) like the idea of putting roles/whatever in for people as they are born and die, but on the other hand like the idea of making the lists simple and letting people explore to see who someone is. The one thing I worry abot with the roles is that 95% (or more) of the day entries done thus far don't have 'em, and I don't want to update them all! :) Thoughts? -- Sulfur 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC) :I like the idea of having the roles, as well, hence why I started adding them. ;) That said, however, I do see your point about keeping things simple. I think we should just leave the template the way they are; however, may I suggest having the person's occupation in front of the name? For example, "Actor Brent Spiner, Composter Jerry Goldsmith, etc. It looks more, I dunno... professional I guess. We wouldn't have to change all the templates immediately for that, though. We can just do all the remaining templates that way, and just update the previous templates when we come across them. --From Andoria with Love 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC) That could work. What about Actor/Director/Composer people though? Or many role people? Perhaps "Performer"/"Production Staff"? I'm not sure on that one. Not convinced either way, to be blunt. As an aside, I created all of the "day" pages for November to get them off of the most wanted list, and am working through the Templates for each day slowly right now. Such a joy it is. Or something. -- Sulfur 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC) :Hmm. Good luck with that. ;) In any case, I don't really think it matters whether the occupational terms are included or not. The templates are fine the way they are. :) --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC) ::I like the additional information too. There are a lot of people who I have no idea who they are, and it's better to get a clue about who they are before hitting a link. I suggest the following way of handling it: ::Actors: Only list their primary role(s) in parantheses after their name. :::Majel Barrett (Christine Chapel, Lwaxana Troi, et al.) is born. :::Malcolm McDowell (Tolian Soran) is born. ::In the actual Majel Barrett listing, for instance, there's too much. ::All other production staff: List their primary job(s) in parentheses after their name. :::Ronald D. Moore (writer, producer, et al.) is born. :::Michael Westmore (make-up artist) is born. ::Always keeping the person's name up front adds to readability and appearance (IMO). 9er 19:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC) :That could also work. Like I said, though, if it were to be added, we wouldn't need to update all the templates immediately. The main info is already in the templates, we can just add the additional info when we have the time or when we come across the templates. Assuming the additional info is accepted, of course. ;) --From Andoria with Love 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Busted Templates They seem to be hosed again. The ifexpr (used in datelink, born frex), switch (used in all of the calendar days) seem to be the big culprits, and the action=purge thing doesn't work on 'em. Any idea what's going on? Again? -- Sulfur 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :The folks at Wikia have been testing upgrades to the MediaWiki software throughout the week. The templates will likely be broken from time to time until the issue can be corrected. --From Andoria with Love 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Yah, I saw your announcement. Looks like we was writing at the same time or so. heh. -- Sulfur 03:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :Indeed. ;) For the record, Wikia's been testing a new version and then returning to the previous version, so all should be back to normal shortly. --From Andoria with Love 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Couple of things Just a couple of things. First, I want to apologize for filling up the recent changes list with my recategorizing the images of Klingons (I think I did somewhere near 150, there were only about 20 in that category when I started). Unfortunetly, I am probably going to be doing this again over the next few days, as I have nowhere near finished going through all of the klingon images I can find. Second off, I am thinking of nominating Star Trek: Armada for removal from Featured Status. I want to get your opinion on whether I should do that first. The article has been in a lot of flux over the last month (mostly me). I have added a lot of information, corrected a lot of errors, but now there are sections of the article which seem incomplete. I don't have ships stats for all races (particularly the non-playable). I have images that need replacing (I am working on this, but it is coming slowly), and have formatting work that needs to be redone. In many ways, this is simply not the same article that was featured. Here is a history of the article changes from right before I started up to now: http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_Armada&diff=382062&oldid=354523 It probably sounds weird coming from me, since I have been the one doing all of these changes to that article, but until I am done, I don't think it is worthy of being featured. What do you think? --OuroborosCobra talk 08:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :Wow. Okay, first off, I think you should just have a bot take care of categorizing the images. After all, that's what they're there for. ;) Those users who have bots include Cid, Alan, and Kobi; I suggest asking one of them to take care of it. :As for removing Armada from Featured Status – wow, it's only been featured since January 2005. :-P It's also already been our Article of the Week. Personally, I don't think that an article should be removed from Featured Status just because it's incomplete; featured articles can be expanded (and should be, if needed), just like any other article. Then again, it might be a good idea for some featured articles to be removed from Featured Status to undergo a refit now-and-again. Then, when it becomes featured again, it can become Article of the Week again. Eh... whatever. Personally, I don't think it's needed, but if you want, bring it up at Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates and see what others have to say. --From Andoria with Love 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 67.181.63.245 Someone needs to put a stop to User:67.181.63.245 quick. -- Renegade54 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Thanks! :) -- Renegade54 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::No problem. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::I'll take care of the pages he created momentarily, if nobody beats me to them. --From Andoria with Love 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Speaking of those pages, what is our policy on redirects made for non-canon starship names? For example: :They would seem to me to be unnecessary. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, I was gonna get to those, like... after my shower... and, like, secretly hope someone would, like, beat me to it. Um, I think we keep non-canon redirects. All the same, though, I'd bring 'em up either at Ten Forward or on Vfd. (Yes, you have officially volunteered for that assignment. Enjoy! ;) ) --From Andoria with Love 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Done. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) see my talk see my talk page to see what you are restoring.--Alan del Beccio 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC) anon signatures why are you removing all of them?--172.150.92.36 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Majel Barrett song I left this message with AJ: :Hello. Our friendly anon who keeps uploading that Majel Barrett song did it again today. He has also put it into his user page, User:68.102.133.33. :Also, a new image was uploaded, and I am not sure what its source is. I can't seem to find the boilerplate message to mark it as needing its source and copyright info added (really tired right now, long last few days). It's at Image:Nemesis comparison1.jpg --OuroborosCobra talk 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC) But I see that you are doing edits right now, so maybe you can do something about it. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC) the Tasha Yar vandal Shran - perhaps you should block User:68.102.133.33, since I think this was the initial connection of the Tasha Yar vandal. The page for User:68.102.133.33 was created just before the User:Tasha Yar page and contained the same Billie Jean lyrics - which you have already noted as a copyvio. Just a suggestion :> --Jim 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, I would think that would be a good precaution, although I don't the s/he would need to have a very long ban. Lemme see if s/he has been warned yet; if they have, I'll ban 'em, if not, I'll warn 'em. --From Andoria with Love 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) :*Oh, screw it, I'll just ban the freak. --From Andoria with Love 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Vandals In addition to the two you blocked, and the one AJ blocked earlier, there were two others in that spur of vandalcrap that AJ and I cleaned up. The other two users were 'Gentleman Jack' and 'Bobby Digital'. Fyi. -- Sulfur 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC) :Bobby the dweeb made some moves too that us regular users can't clean up... JACOMO!! is the page he moved crap too. If you can fix that too... :) -- Sulfur 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Blue Devil You scared me to death with that summary of yours in VfD. I'm sure that was your intention, evil Andorian. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *Mwa-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! (grins as antennae twist to form devil's horns) >:-D --From Andoria with Love 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Filmstrip icon Might it not be an idea to protect that image? I think that it's been vandalized a couple of times now, and it's on close to 1/3 of the pages on MA... just a thought. -- Sulfur 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, that might be a good precaution seeing as it's on so many pages. I'll see to it. --From Andoria with Love 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Series Finale and Finale The second's a redirect to the first, which was deleted as a copyvio about 10 minutes ago. Logically, the second should now be turfed as an immediate deletion, no? Or do I misunderstand the logic here. -- Sulfur 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :No, you're right, it needed to be deleted, I just forgot all about it. Anyways, it's gone now. Thanks for catching that. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Identify "looking right" Given that Kirk was "arguably" the most human of all the characters, that proverbial ideal between Spock and McCoy, I would argue that the page has always just not looked right without a quote to sum up his standing at the pinnicle of the Star Trek universe. --75.2.22.184 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :Apologies; it logged me out while I was writing that. --ChrisK 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :Basically, the quote made the beginning of the article look like a crowded mess, which is why it was removed. It was a stylistic decision. If you wish it to be re-added, please bring your argument up in the article's talk page, and we'll see how other's feel about it. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) References section on Episodes I've notice lately that you've been removing some references from the reference section on episodes. Now, I know that the episodal template does note that the section is for 'references not previously linked in the page' (or some words similar to that), but I've noticed (and found) that most of the episode pages try to make the reference section as complete as possible with respect to things referenced in the episode, even if previously linked. In some ways, it does improve the ability of the average joe reader (or josephine) to simply go to the references section and be able to see "all" of the references from an episode. Might this be something that we (meaning all of MA) should discuss in the relevant place (wherever that is in this case...)? That way, we can at least have some consistency between episodes :) -- Sulfur 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :I was just following the norm of things. Feel free to bring it up for discussion on a relevant page, though (Ten Forward, most likely). I'm not sure there's a need to re-link references which were already linked in the episode's summary, but we'll see if anyone else feels there needs to be a change. :) --From Andoria with Love 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not neccessarily thinking a change is in order... just some consistency :) Although, on a wiki that really is shooting for the moon and all. -- Sulfur 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ::I'll comment again when this is brought up in Ten Forward, but I agree with Sulfur's original comment here. The thing is, those episode summaries can get very long, and I find it useful to have a complete list of references at the end of the article in addition to the summary. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :Yes, consistency is a pretty huge feat on a wiki. :P I was going to say we could just remove the repeated references as we come across the relevant episodes, but let's see what a Ten Forward discussion brings up. --From Andoria with Love 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Continuing at Forum:Reference Lists on Episode Summaries -- Sulfur 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Plot Holes vs. Nitpick I noticed you rv'ed my entry on A Matter of Perspective. I read through Ten Forward's nitpick page, and I fail to see where this applies here. 1) The central premise of the episode was Riker getting off the hook by having the crew deduce what happened on the station by simulating it on the holodeck. This isn't a nitpick that should be added onto holodeck since we have no way of knowing whether the holodeck was in operation at the time the two radiation incident occured. It is a plot hole that was particular to this episode. 2) We also do not know what effect Krieger wave has or does not have on holodeck material. The only thing left standing were the chairs and desk where the crew was sitting, everything else (incl. floor, everything related to the station, etc.) was "destroyed" when the wave hit the simulated station. Since Krieger wave was a plot device that was used only on this episode, and in particular the interaction between Kriger wave and holodeck material will probably never be known, it would not be appropriate to add it to holodeck either. 3) You left Riker's "firing the phaser" plot hole intact. The episode would've been cut very short if that hole was filled, though.^^ :See Talk:A Matter of Perspective. --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Jefferies vs Jeffries I confirmed the spelling via the NY Times obituary articvle...I don't know how much more official you can get than that...granted I may be nitpicking here...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :Right...shows what I know, huh? I thought Id picked the best source, but oh well...not the first time I've been wrong... :) Capt Christopher Donovan 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reversions It's just that OroborousCobra has a very weird insistance on being "spoon fed" information, IMO...He tried to insist that, despite common sense, the rules of syntax and grammar, AND common military parlance that the orders Sisko issued to "Destroyer Units 2 and 6" in "Sacrifice of Angels" meant he was issuing orders to FOUR units (long story). In this specific case ("Cetecean Ops"), I just don't see why, without explicit dialogue to CONTRADICT it, we can't use a common room identifier like that to describe similar facilities on ships in alternate realities. That is, unless specifically said otherwise, a Bridge is a Bridge, phasers are phasers, etc...common sense...Capt Christopher Donovan 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) :Thanks for bringing up the Destroyer thing. I find it funny that you would, since after doing what we are supposed to do on wikis, DISCUSSING IT ON TALK PAGES, I decided to go along with YOUR opinion. What, in order for you to accept me, I have to follow EVERYTHING you do? Guess what, not going to happen. Also, funny thing on the Destroyer thing, once I decided to go along with what you said, I even helped you, by making the necessary changes to articles like Centaur type to reflect that they are destroyers. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) ::Whoa, hang on there, OC, pull in the fangs. I didn't mean anything personal by it, it's just an observation about your editing theory...Capt Christopher Donovan 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Well blueskin, since this is the most edited page in the univ- I mean wiki, I want to contribute something since it seems to popular. Turns out it was Orange juice after all. http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=117&pos=114 - AJ Halliwell 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) On the two edits in a row you'll doubtless have seen by now on certain page Yes, I did use the Show Preview option, several times before posting the final current version. The single typo corrected in the second is something I apologize for missing. -- ChrisK 10:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) :Um... alright then. Make sure it doesn't happen again. :P Seriously, though, it's okay if it takes one or two more edits to fix everything, just so long as you tried to get everything right the first go-round and don't just save one edit after another... like I did for Christopher Lloyd. ;) That said, there's really no need to bring something like this to our attention unless you make frequent edits to one page – we're not gonna ban you for making more than one edit per article. ;) --From Andoria with Love 14:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Cloaking device Re line 16: I don't see how the article can talk directly above about 22nd centry Starfleet's experiences with cloaking devices, and then go straight into it being considered by 2'3'rd century Starfleet to be virtually impossible. Better I think just to omit that, as my understanding of canon precedence is "newest" information is determinative. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.) Re: the "alliance" theory...commonly accepted but never proven that they TRADED the cloak. The Klingons could have stolen it for all we know. The article reads just fine without that reference, and avoids the controversy, IMO. I'll grant you the part about Klothos being "one of the first", given Kor's remark about it being new tech at the time (which I'd forgotten about when I did that edit). But what is your thinking to justify that it quickly becomes standard for nearly all Klingon ships? Re your last paragraph: That one I can go with. It's better than the one it replaces.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) New categories We seem to have a bunch of new, unapproved categories appearing all of a sudden... -- Renegade54 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) :I know, I'm on 'em. Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Categories I'm being bold and cleaning up the categorization system. I see no reason to go all Picard and discuss every little thing before it happens, otherwise wikis would never grow at the rate they do. Adamwankenobi 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) :Be bold in editing, not in categorizing. We appreciate the thought, but we'd prefer if you follow policy on this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 14:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) ::Not a very good way to welcome a person in to your community I don't think (by immediately reverting my edits). By requiring categories to be voted on, you are going against the very concept of a wiki. Just when I was starting to like this place... Goodbye. On all other wikis you are allowed to be bold, but not here apparently. Adamwankenobi 14:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) :::I don't make the rules. If you wish to propose a policy change, please do so at Ten Forward. --From Andoria with Love 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm beginning to not like this place because I can't make even the slightest edit without someone criticising or reverting it. See my edit history for previous instances of this. Adamwankenobi 14:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) :::::That's understandable – you're new to MA, unfamiliar with our policies, so clashes with those who have been here longer are to be expected. Heck, there are "old-timers" here who still make many mistakes (myself included), so there really isn't anything to be upset about. Once you've familiarized yourself with the policies (should you choose to stay), then the better you'll understand how to edit and how not to edit (if that makes sense). Anyways, if you choose to leave, I'm sorry to hear it, but like I said, we have a policy and if you wish it changed, merely bring it up on the appropriate discussion page. :) --From Andoria with Love 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 40 Eridani system Confused by your reversion. Is this an expression of official MA policy? Please see talk page there. Stano Riga How is he not _the_ funniest comedian? Data asks who the funniest comedian ever is. The answer: Stano Riga. More "Brightened and enhanced" images Here are some images that need to be reverted back (in some cases again). I know Bfgreen means well, but these just aren't better. Can someone (not me) ask him to sop, or something? Image:Sisko2375.jpg (he says it still needed brightening, but I think it was just fine the way it was) Thanks. Just one right now. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)